Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

[desicat]

The Japanese army of 1944-45 had absolutely no chance of stopping the Soviet Army in Manchuria, Northern China, or Korea. Soviet combat experience against the Germans, armor, mechanized units, artillery, and ground support aircraft would have ground down, encircled, and cut even elite Japanese units to pieces.

Without effective tanks, anti-tank guns, hand held anti-tank weapons, or mechanized supply capabilities large formation Japanese units were at best speed bumps. US forces in Korea had the exact same problems with North Korean forces early in Korea (and the US had absolute air superiority).

On the other hand the Soviets had virtually no combat sea power or landing capabilities so a Soviet invasion of the mainland was virtually impossible in the short term. Landing beaches are few and far between with many overlooked by high rocky cliffs of mountains. Lets also not forget the sea ice in the winter that sometimes chokes the Sea of Japan between Japan and the USSR for several months as well.

US forces fighting in Japan would have had a difficult time employing mass armor in the area that GJ now is contesting as the terrain fluctuates from Mountain to marsh, with very little "tank country". Artillery would have pounded rubble into smaller rubble, and the weather is horrible with fog mixed with rain and snow for at least half the year.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: desicat

The Japanese army of 1944-45 had absolutely no chance of stopping the Soviet Army in Manchuria, Northern China, or Korea. Soviet combat experience against the Germans, armor, mechanized units, artillery, and ground support aircraft would have ground down, encircled, cut even elite Japanese units to pieces.

Without effective tanks, anti-tank guns, hand held anti-tank weapons, or mechanized supply capabilities large formation Japanese units were at best speed bumps. US forces in Korea had the exact same problems with North Korean forces early in Korea (and the US had absolute air superiority).

On the other hand the Soviets had virtually no combat sea power or landing capabilities so a Soviet invasion of the mainland was virtually impossible in the short term.

US forces fighting in Japan would have had a difficult time employing mass armor in the area that GJ now is contesting as the terrain fluctuates from Mountain to marsh, with very little "tank country". Artillery would have pounded rubble into smaller rubble, and the weather is horrible with fog mixed with rain and snow for at least half the year.

You're probably right in the long run RE: Soviets. I just think the Japanese could have fought for longer than 15 days if properly deployed [:)]

And, I've argued in detail before that I don't think pretty much any terrain in Japan should be clear. Japan is one of the roughest, hilliest, and most forrested industrialized countries in the world. I think the only clear hex I agree with is Chiba, SW of Tokyo on the Kanto plain (where Corronet was supposed to target).

[Chickenboy]

Granted, but in your game comparative to IRL, the blockade and bombardment camp has failed. Invasion was performed (was it on a shoestring?) and casualties in larger numbers than they've ever seen are daily newspaper and small town reports. Allied (particularly American) casualties now make Tarawa look like a Sunday dance-and there were repercussions after Tarawa.

Would the American public be looking at their civilian and military leaders with despair and anger (like they did after Tarawa)? Now magnify that by a log factor of 2-something never experienced in the real war. Still so sure about no settlement?

Remember, the idea of 'unconditional surrender' was a late war development. I believe there was more openness to the concept of a 'conditional surrender' prior to Yalta. Your game is before Yalta, before D-day, before so many other bloody tests of Allied resolve. It's the mother of all Allied tests-I'm not so sure that they (the public / civilian leaders) wouldn't make a different decision.

[desicat]

Rader, I lived and flew out of Japan for many years and the weather and terrain would be horrendous to fight in and around.

As far a GJ goes, he has three beachheads that need to be supplied - what can you do about it?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: rader

All this being said, I think I've got basically no chance to kick him out. His firepower would cut down my attackers before I got the assault off, and even if I got high odds, that is no guarantee of getting him to surrender if he is in the open instead of being in one of his own bases [8|]

I might be able to mount an effective and protracted defense... but attacking is probably out of the question given his superior firepower.

Yes. This is more what I meant. Hold 'em by the nose and attrit his naval, air and ground forces. Bleed him. Quickly where you can, slowly where you must. Bleed him. Challenge his resolve for (unsustainable) casualties. Make him choke on the bite that was too big for him to chew. Bleed him. On Honshu, time is on your side in many ways.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: rader

All this being said, I think I've got basically no chance to kick him out. His firepower would cut down my attackers before I got the assault off, and even if I got high odds, that is no guarantee of getting him to surrender if he is in the open instead of being in one of his own bases [8|]

I might be able to mount an effective and protracted defense... but attacking is probably out of the question given his superior firepower.

Yes. This is more what I meant. Hold 'em by the nose and attrit his naval, air and ground forces. Bleed him. Quickly where you can, slowly where you must. Bleed him. Challenge his resolve for (unsustainable) casualties. Make him choke on the bite that was too big for him to chew. Bleed him. On Honshu, time is on your side in many ways.

The problem is that the only place I could get at him is Hakkodate, and he's got all his strength (~10 BBs, 3,200 figthers, 1,600 bombers) there. I could try a KB raid, but honestly, the risk is probably not worth the potential reward, and it would open up a route into the Bonins/Ryukus for him. With the KB intact and LBA, I bet I could stop anything unsupported by his LBA (especially with many of his CVEs gone). But I need to keep it that way.

I don't see a lot of avenues for disproportional attrition, unless he opens them for me.

[Heeward]

I finally found your AAR - I will have to read it all....

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Heeward

I finally found your AAR - I will have to read it all....

Oh it's not that much. Don't have a lot of free time and haven't really kept the story going. But I'll try to do about a once a week update. These days things are very quiet, and we are zooming through the turns... up to around Oct 8.

[Heeward]

Now read it all, and the qualification statements...

I have read your opponents' AAR and made one post. - so yours will be ahead

Could you give us a strategic overview?

I suggest you do a unit count of major allied units, and determine his reserves.
What is your replacement ability of shattered land units - in the most favorable location on Honshu- including production of said replacements?
As you own all the bases still, and control all the hex sides - his units can not retreat - verify this by the way.

If you believe you have a stalemate - concentrate you reserves whatever they are,  Pick one beach head with the fewest enemy units and destroy it.
If you have more units then the enemy consider placing the excess troops in reserve, until the turn - they should not have significant disruption levels and be pretty fresh for the assault turn. On the assault turn you commit your entire air-force to ground support including strafing. Your goal here is to force a retreat, and destruction / surrender of his units.

Last caveat - consider practicing this operation, especially the ground support operation.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Now read it all, and the qualification statements...

I have read your opponents' AAR and made one post. - so yours will be ahead

Could you give us a strategic overview?

I suggest you do a unit count of major allied units, and determine his reserves.
What is your replacement ability of shattered land units - in the most favorable location on Honshu- including production of said replacements?
As you own all the bases still, and control all the hex sides - his units can not retreat - verify this by the way.

If you believe you have a stalemate - concentrate you reserves whatever they are,  Pick one beach head with the fewest enemy units and destroy it.
If you have more units then the enemy consider placing the excess troops in reserve, until the turn - they should not have significant disruption levels and be pretty fresh for the assault turn. On the assault turn you commit your entire air-force to ground support including strafing. Your goal here is to force a retreat, and destruction / surrender of his units.

Last caveat - consider practicing this operation, especially the ground support operation.

As far as Allied units, he's got ~6000 AV in Akita, ~6000 AV in Hachinohe, and ~1200 AV in Hirosaki. Based on previous invasions, I'd guess he can land around 6000-8000 AV per invasion, and he's got about that many troops in reserve at Hakkodate. So he's got about 1 more good invasion for now left (for now).

I have about equal or slightly more troops than the allies at the invasion sites: ~6000-7000 at Akita & Hachinohe, ~2200 at Hirosaki. Enough to stop him, but not nearly enough to counterattack.

So far he has landed only under allied land-based air, which seems practically uncontestable. I have the KB and a lot of LBA ready to respond to an invasion farther down the coast, or elsewhere on the map. Without most of his CVEs, I'd guess that I could mess up pretty well, if not stop, an invasion outside of his LBA cover (at the very least, make it very costly).

I have about a total of 8000 AV in reserve not committed to the battle area, so about the same as the allies. These are distributed around beaches farther south, mostly at Sendai and Niggita (obvious secondary locations), but I've got at least a division in the bases closer to Hokkaido, and I've got anti-paradrop forces in all bases of importance.

If I commited my reserve, I could get up to around 14000 AV at Akita/Hachinohe, or maybe 10000 AV at Hirosaki. This *might* be able to push the allies into the sea, but I actually sort of doubt it given their better firepower. I'd guess that I would need about 3.5:1 to actually win at Akita/Hachinohe, or more like 5:1 at Hirosaki (difficult terrain). If I did build up for a counterattack, he could rush reinforcements in, and of course would use massive air & bombardments.

Moreover, if I commited my reserve and stripped my remaining beaches, while I might have some chance to attack, I would certainly open up an opportunity for him to invade somewhere else down the coast with his 6000-8000 AV reserve at Hakkodate. I don't know where he's prepping for, but I'm willing to bet it's somewhere down the coast, and if I totally stripped my reserves he could go pretty much anywhere, preparation or not. So basically, I can't afford to counterattack, beecause I need to keep my reserves ready to respond to his reserves. I've got a wolf by the ears - I don't like it, but I can't let it go.

As far as replacements, the attrition is steady but actually fairly mild in terms of absolute losses. In terms of land attrition, this situation is probably preferable to the norm - uterly losing isolated garrisons one by one without hope of recovering any of the men or equipment. So far, I can keep up. But here the danger is much greater. If I lose an isolated island or two, who cares? But if I lose a portion of Honshu, it will be tea in the imperial palace for Admiral Nimitz.

[rader]

Remaining surface units:

BBs (7): Musashi, Nagato (Mustu was the one sunk), Hiei, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga

CAs (3): Takao, Mikuma, Kumano

CLs: (8): Agano, Noshiro, Yahagi, Abukuma, Katori(*), Yubari(*), Teshio, Sakawa - *=not much good

DDs: ~55 modern, 10 obsolete (+~50 building)

KB untouched except for loss of CVE Hosho, all carriers in service.

[Chickenboy]

rader,

If you're convinced that he's tying up that much of his LCU AVs on Hokkaido / N. Honshu, is there any option for you to import some LCUs from Korea? They may do you some good and, with KB's cover, you should be able to get them onto the island, no?

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

rader,

If you're convinced that he's tying up that much of his LCU AVs on Hokkaido / N. Honshu, is there any option for you to import some LCUs from Korea? They may do you some good and, with KB's cover, you should be able to get them onto the island, no?

I've already extracted about as many as I can from the Kwangtung army without breaking the Soviet garrison - it's currently at ~8400 AV. Want to leave a bit of margin of safety.

[JohnDillworth]

BBs (7): Musashi, Nagato (Mustu was the one sunk), Hiei, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga

CAs (3): Takao, Mikuma, Kumano

CLs: (8): Agano, Noshiro, Yahagi, Abukuma, Katori(*), Yubari(*), Teshio, Sakawa - *=not much good

DDs: ~55 modern, 10 obsolete (+~50 building)

Not so bad. Better than RL, much better than RL if you consider the KB. Don't know if it's true for the Japanese , but for the allies there seems to be some problems when operating TF's with ships of wildly different speeds and vintages. Also nationalities but that is not your problem. Not sure how your KB pilots are but it seems you have a punch or two left

[rader]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Not sure how your KB pilots are but it seems you have a punch or two left

The KB pilots are decent... not in the 80s like they start. All the veterans are pretty dead [:(] But they don't have much to do these days except train, so they are all ~ 70 in the relevant skills.

[rader]

Allied and Japanese diplomats are currently negotiating on the rules of war: GJ asked for a change to our HR on night bombing. Probably easier to to paste my response:

Hmm, well, I don't have a problem with night bombing in principle. I just have a problem with how it's implemented in the game. It seems to do just as much damage as day bombing, and can't be intercepted by fighters set to normal (day) CAP. There should be a reduction in accuracy (more than there is now), and day fighters should sometimes be able to react to incomming bombers (even at reduced effectiveness).

The really broken part is night bombing airfields, and this is related to the fact that bombers almost never fail to find (or bomb) their targets. Historically, most night bombing was completely unreliable, and precision night bombing was basically a myth. In the game, if you send many hundred night bombers to attack an airfield, you are completely circumventing any fighters stationed there, and since the game considers all the planes to be lined up in neat rows at a single runway (instead of dispersed and camouflaged amongst many small airstrips as they should be), the effect is about the same as if you drop a nuclear bomb on the hex. In fact, I am convinced that regular airfield bombing is overpowered for the same reason - the game takes no account of failing to find the target, decoy dummy target aircraft, dispersal/camouflage of aircraft at the airfield, and dispersal of aircraft amongst many airfields.

That being said, I think a stronger case can be made for city bombing at night - provided you aren't attacking sepcific targets. About the smallest target you can hit at night is a city, and the British in Europe and some of the B-29s in Japan did this effectively. So I am less convinced that a HR is necessary for bombing cities - and by cities, I mean manpower, not specific targets like particular types of factories at cities. But I have a litttle concern that unintercepted night bombing seems to be still really powerful. I wish a day fighter group would at least sometimes try to scramble at night. German fighter groups did this all the time, and it might at least throw off the bomber's aim or something. Eh, I guess not a problem. I might agree to something like night bombers (only) are not restricted in number (but still in altitude) when attacking manpower at night. I'm not sure what night bombers are in the game... some B-29s maybe. Lancasters later on? Any others? And then you could add day bombers up to our current HR to the attack. Is it still 20K ft?

I also might consider removing the moonlight restriction and say something like you can always use up to 2 night bombing air groups per turn. I like the moonlight thing, but then you have to keep track of it, and I often forget to try it while the moonlight is high.

I do think Michael tweaked it with a patch and it does seem a bit better now though we haven't used it enough to really know. I would like to run some more tests before I agree to anything, but in principle I might be willing to modify the HR for bombing manpower - although I bet, like all bombing, it is more powerful in the game than in RL for a variety of reasons ~ mostly to do with the fact that bombers never lose their way, can fly every day (compare this with average major sortie rates of around once per week!), never bomb the wrong target, and with good pilots, have laser-glide bomb like accuracy

Incidentally, this fact that bombers are way overpowered is the whole reason for the HR on strat bombing of 20K ft. It seems though that it dosen't help that much - even at that altitude, one good raid is pretty much good enough to destroy all the aircraft production of a city ~ they never miss their target I'm reading a lot about the strat bombing campaign against Japan, and while they did do a pretty good job at destroying cities, even B-29s almost never did much damage (usually missed their target completely) when they tried to bomb specific aircraft factories.

[rader]

My view on HRs is that I would like as much as possible to represent historical capabilities, constraints, and tactical results (i.e., historical sensible outcomes of battles), while leaving the strategic choices up to the player (with some realistic strategic/political constraints). This is the only purpose of HRs IMO - when players feel these constraints and capabilities are not modelled as well as they could be.

The idea of making a mod to attempt to fix a lot of percieved issues and "re-balance" the game has been stewing in my brain for a while. (Actually, I think the game as it stands is relatively balanced, but in ways that are historically skewed for both sides: i.e., overpowered 4Es trades off vs. "unlimited" Japanese aircraft production). I'd like to work on this with GJ, if he's willing. These are really just issues I perceive with game balance, and if you think the game is perfect exactly as it is, I totally respect your opinion - I'm not asking anyone to play it [:)]

Feel free to contribute stuff to the list if you want [:)]

Main areas for tweaks would be (* = not sure how to implement):
4Es:
-Reduce accuracy of defensive armament (this has been tried and seems to work)
-Reduce bomb accuracy vs. small targets by having them drop fewer "sticks" of more powerful bombs (this has been tried and seems to work)

Other aircraft:
-Try to make their defensive armament not totally useless (when was the last time anything other than a 4E shot something down?)
-Increase the accuracy of small bombs carried by light bombers and dive bombers vs. land targets (why dosen't the IL-2 ever do anything? - 20 times less powerful than a 4E at tactical air support seems strange)
-Reduce the effectiveness of night bombing*
-Somehow try to represent aircraft camouflage/dispersion at smaller airfields (make airfield bombing slightly less powerful)*

Land units:
-Add some more static BF & static garisons, but reduce the mobile ones

Industry:
-Increase the cost to expand "heavy" industries (aircraft/engine factories/HI/shipyards)
-Reduce the cost to expand "light" industries and repair industries
(this should go a long way to helping to balancing Japanese aircraft production)
-Make R&D slightly harder*
-Make pilot training slightly harder*

Logistics:
-Reduce the capacity of transports & cargo ships
-Reduce the SPS of most bases, but this would require a new map
-Make expanding bases slower*
-Increase ops losses*
-Reduce overall AV support available for both sides
-Try to spread out engineers a bit so most units can at least repair facilities, but overall building bases is harder

Combat:
-Normalize combat air speeds a little bit (say conver to knots, so 5280/6080), ot make airframe slightly less of a combat determinant (nates should kind of suck, but not be completely useless with a good pilot)
-Increase the durability of all a/c slightly to reduce combat losses somewhat
-Try to increase the effectiveness of small flak concentrations, but decrease large ones*
-Try to normalize terrain effect a little (instead of x1, x2, x3, x4, more like x1.25, x1.5, x2, x2.5 for defense)*
-Reduce the firepower of all squads and AFVs so that land combat lasts a bit longer and is more attritional

[Chickenboy]

Rader,

This seems reasonable to me and an example of open communication between two partners adapting to the vagaries of the game engine over time. Good on you both for working this through.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

As far as the Soviets .. an operational detail that existed since Khalkhin Gol is far superior armor. In the open terrain the Guards Armies are murder against way undersized/inferior IJ armor.

The difference between any war previously fought by the United States and the "struggle with Japan" is that the Japanese struck first without a declaration of war. Despite the best rationalizations of the JFB's no way would the US sue for peace with anything less than unconditional surrender. Given the hypothetical situation that the IJ have been able to out produce the US in air power and some hypothetical situation that the US industrial might is somehow being completely diverted away from the Pacific [the historical withdrawals were made because the IJ blew it at Midway ..[;)] ] Ok the decision at this point would be around destroying Japan as a nation. Oppenheimer is very very busy these days .. [;)]

Absolutely, the Kwangtung army would have been defeated anyway being spread out in the open and attacked on 3 sides, but probably not as rapidly, and if they had pre-emptively withdrawn to Korea (maybe politically unlikely), they would have performed much better.

I also agree that the US would probably have pursued the war until the end. The possibility of any kind of negotiated settlement short of unconditional surrender was pure Japanese fantasy. But it is possible that the the blockade and bomb camp would have prevailed, leading to a war that laster until 1947 or so before Japan finally got tired of fighting and the right people in the Japanese camp took power and surrendered.

I agree, but I think it would have come a little faster. The key would have been mass starvation as dwindling food sources were already an issue in 1945.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: rader
-Increase the accuracy of small bombs carried by light bombers and dive bombers vs. land targets (why dosen't the IL-2 ever do anything? - 20 times less powerful than a 4E at tactical air support seems strange)

Would need separate bomb device definitions for different plane types.

-Reduce the effectiveness of night bombing*

Hard-coded.

-Somehow try to represent aircraft camouflage/dispersion at smaller airfields (make airfield bombing slightly less powerful)*

Hard-coded.

-Increase the cost to expand "heavy" industries (aircraft/engine factories/HI/shipyards)

Hard-coded.

-Reduce the cost to expand "light" industries and repair industries
(this should go a long way to helping to balancing Japanese aircraft production)

Hard-coded.

-Make R&D slightly harder*

Algorithms are hard-coded, but you could start with a smaller number of zero size R&D factories.

-Make pilot training slightly harder*

Algorithms are hard-coded, but you could reduce the size of the pool, replacement rate and exp level.

-Reduce the SPS of most bases, but this would require a new map

No map required, SPS values are simply defined in the locations table in the editor.

-Make expanding bases slower*

Hard-coded, but you could reduce the number of engineers available.

-Increase ops losses*

Hard-coded.

-Try to increase the effectiveness of small flak concentrations, but decrease large ones*

Would need code change.

-Try to normalize terrain effect a little (instead of x1, x2, x3, x4, more like x1.25, x1.5, x2, x2.5 for defense)*

Hard-coded unless perhaps defined in PWHEX?